advertising

Fortune media hound Mathew Ingram noted in May 2015, when Facebook’s Instant Articles format launched, that Big Blue saw it as “as a mutual exchange of goods, driven by the company’s desire to help publishers make their articles look as good as possible and reach more readers.” He went on to say:

But whenever you have an entity with the size and power of Facebook, even the simplest of arrangements becomes fraught with peril, and this is no exception. Why? Because a single player holds all of the cards in this particular game.

Around that time, Gawker’s Nick Denton, since brought low by a multimillion-dollar lawsuit loss you may have seen coverage about, went so far as to call the Facebook-publisher relationship not a distribution partnership but “abject surrender”:

So many media organizations are just playing to Facebook. They’re just catering to the preferences…expressed in some algorithm that nobody understands. It’s almost like we’re leaving offerings for some unpredictable machine god that may or may not bless us.

Almost a year after its launch, and a year’s worth of tweaks to the Instant Articles product, we have a more complete picture of the pros and cons.

Pros

Massive distribution open to many publishers
Following its closed launch with a limited amount of “partners,” including the New York Times and National Geographic, Facebook has opened the program to publishers big and small, in the U.S. and around the world, “giving every news organization the capability to publish their content on the social network,” according to Poynter.

WordPress plug-ins make it easier
After a rocky launch that required programmers to reformat every article especially for Facebook, the company was able to scale it to most new organizations through a WordPress plugin the company created, “essentially greasing the skids for mass adoption of the program among news organizations.” Per Poynter:

The plugin is being built in partnership with Automattic, the parent company of WordPress.com, and helps translate news stories to Facebook’s Instant Articles format. This removes a significant hurdle for news organizations.

New potential revenue streams
It’s no secret that magazines are continuing to fold and even digital-native sites can’t make the numbers work. We’ve also seen the rise of ad blockers and native/sponsored/branded content. Are content partnerships like these the answer, or at least an answer?

Cons

Only certain companies are seeing real benefits
BuzzFeed and Vox, to name two, are on board with the new format. Vox even hired media heavy hitter Choire Sicha to oversee its distributed partnerships (Facebook, Snapchat, Apple News and others, presumably). Per the WSJ, “Vox Media has long counted its own content platform as a key to its success. But now it says the future lies in platforms run by others, so it’s bringing in a digital media stalwart to help strengthen those ties.”

But others have yet to make hay from Facebook’s sunshine. As Fortune notes:

The media industry is in a “get big or go home” phase.

BuzzFeed and Vox are big, so they can play in Facebook’s Instant Articles world better than the smaller guys can.

It’s difficult (and costly) to track the audience
As AdAge reports, publishers have to pay more to track their audiences on distributed platforms. Yes, they get bigger distribution (theoretically, anyway), but ComScore apparently charges “$15,000, per platform, per year, to add tracking capabilities.” And six months post-launch, Apple News still doesn’t even have ComScore integration. This puts publishers in a tough position: In order to help their bottom lines, they want to reach the audience wherever the audience is, but doing so costs money they don’t have.

It’s not clear that publishers make money
Following on the point above, in the distributed content ad model, if you don’t know how much audience you have, you also don’t know how much revenue you stand to make. At this point, publishers are still crossing their fingers that this translates to revenue.

Jobs continue to be cut but not added back
Publishers are “re-allocating resources to build teams that produce content for specific social platforms,” per AdAge, but they’re cutting far, far more than they’re adding. Journalism is going through the kind of massive…transition, disruption, sea change, slaughter, whatever you want to call it, that is epic in scale. There are too many outlets that have closed up shop or gone through major layoffs to name. It’s especially chilling when digital-only publications like Mashable, IBT and Slant (just in the past couple of weeks) can’t even make the numbers work.

vs.

The Mayans were wrong, the holiday season has ended, New Year’s has come and gone, and we’re all settling in to 2013. It may be a new year, but it’s the same old problems for the future of journalism…or is it? Below, five of the most interesting nuggets I read this week about the state of print media, advertising and marketing.

1.

Andrew Sullivan, late of the Daily Beast, announced in a post called “New Year, New Dish, New Media” that he’s taking his site to the people. He’s leaving the advertiser-based media world entirely, as well as the venture-backed one:

We want to help build a new media environment that is not solely about advertising or profit above everything, but that is dedicated first to content and quality.

We want to create a place where readers — and readers alone — sustain the site. No bigger media companies will be subsidizing us; no venture capital will be sought to cushion our transition (unless my savings count as venture capital); and, most critically, no advertising will be getting in the way…. Hence the purest, simplest model for online journalism: you, us, and a meter. Period. No corporate ownership, no advertising demands, no pressure for pageviews.

2.

From an essay in yesterday’s NYT magazine called “Can Social Media Sell Soap?” by Stephen Baker on the value, or perceived value, of data- and social media-based marketing and advertising on social media today compared to the so-called heyday of advertising that’s depicted on Mad Men.

In the “Mad Men” depiction of an advertising firm in the ’60s, the big stars don’t sweat the numbers. They’re gut followers. Don Draper pours himself a finger or two of rye and flops on a couch in his corner office. He thinks…. Fellow humanists dominate Don Draper’s rarefied world, while the numbers people, two or three of them crammed into dingier offices, pore over Nielsen reports and audience profiles.

In the last decade however, those numbers people have rocketed to the top. They build and operate the search engines. They’re flexing their quantitative muscles at agencies and starting new ones. And the rise of social networks, which stream a global gabfest into their servers, catapults these quants ever higher. Their most powerful pitches aren’t ideas but rather algorithms. This sends many of today’s Don Drapers into early retirement.

While the rise of search battered the humanists, it also laid a trap that the quants are falling into now. It led to the belief that with enough data, all of advertising could turn into quantifiable science. This came with a punishing downside. It banished faith from the advertising equation. For generations, Mad Men had thrived on widespread trust that their jingles and slogans altered consumers’ behavior. Thankfully for them, there was little data to prove them wrong. But in an industry run remorselessly by numbers, the expectations have flipped. Advertising companies now face pressure to deliver statistical evidence of their success. When they come up short, offering anecdotes in place of numbers, the markets punish them. Faith has given way to doubt.

This leads to exasperation, because in a server farm packed with social data, it’s hard to know what to count. What’s the value of a Facebook “like” or a Twitter follower? What do you measure to find out?

3.

“We see a real shift going on from traditional advertising to a content-driven strategy,” Dan Kortick, managing partner at Wicks, said in a phone interview on Friday. “It’s more about engagement than exposure,” Mr. Kortick said, as content marketing offers “real engagement with your customer base.”

4.

Derek Thompson of The Atlantic weighs in on why web advertising sucks and which of the models described in the quotes above will work going forward (spoiler alert: it’s probably a combination of both, depending on the scale and the goal).

It’s commonly understood that Web advertising stinks, quarantined as it is in miserable banners and squares around article pages. BuzzFeed’s approach is different: It designs ads for companies that aim to be as funny and sharable as their other stories. Jonah Peretti, the CEO of BuzzFeed, told the Guardian’s Heidi Moore that he attributed nearly all the company’s revenues to this sort of “social” advertising. “We work with brands to help them speak the language of the web,” Peretti said. “I think there’s an opportunity to create a golden age of advertising, like another Mad Men age of advertising, where people are really creative and take it seriously.”

The online reaction to the Dish [striking out on its own, without advertising] and BuzzFeed [getting $20 million in funding] seems to be that what Andrew’s doing is sort of quaint and old-fashioned and what BuzzFeed is doing is weird and revolutionary. The opposite is true. Funding a journalistic enterprise without advertising is weird and revolutionary and experimenting with ads that are suitable to their medium is a clear echo of history. Just as the first radio ads were essentially newspaper ads read aloud, and the first television ads were little more than radio spots over static images, many on the Web are fighting the last war rather than building ads that work for the Internet, journalism history professor Michael Schudson explained to me.

Banners and pop-up ads are so awful they practically sulk in their acknowledged awfulness, fully aware that they are interruptions rather than attempts to compete with editorial content for the readers’ attention. BuzzFeed (and other companies experimenting with designing advertising for their advertisers) gets that and tries to fix it. Just as TV ads are successful precisely because they try to be as evocative, funny, arresting, and memorable as actual TV, there’s no reason why advertising content shouldn’t aim to be as informative or delightful as an original online piece.

Even as Sullivan’s Dish is pushing the boundaries of subscriptions, testing how much a dedicated audience is willing to pay for online journalism that is supposedly free, BuzzFeed is pushing the boundaries of advertorial — advertising content like looks like editorial content — testing how far each side of their two-sided market (readers and companies) is willing to go. The future of paid journalism — if we can even try to guess at it — will probably be a blend of the two strategies celebrated this week: Ads that are less useless and ignorable, and readers who are asked to show a little more love than they’re used to.

5.

Finally, let’s wrap up with yet another pollyanna-ish piece from David Carr, titled “Old Media’s Stalwarts Persevered in 2012.” He has postulated that “old media,” by which he means broadcast networks, are “raining green” because they’ve learned from happened to music and print.

The worries about insurgent threats [to broadcasters] from tech-oriented players like Netflix, Amazon and Apple turned out to be overstated. Those digital enterprises were supposed to be trouncing media companies; not only is that not happening, but they are writing checks to buy content…. “As it turns out, the traditional television business is far stickier than people thought, and audience behavior is not changing as rapidly as people thought it might,” said Richard Greenfield, an analyst at BTIG Research.

Perhaps the numbers support this for now — this quarter, this year — but I think that’s a temporary glitch of the awful economy, not a harbinger of the future. As Carr reports, these giant corporations, instead of spending money, paid out dividends and financed stock buybacks. So sure, the numbers are up…but stuffing your savings under the mattress is not a long-term strategy. And its certainly not one that will not work for all “old media,” which Carr eventually acknowledges:

Another thing about those dinosaurs is that they aren’t really old media in the sense of, um, newspapers. When their content is digitized, it is generally monetized, not aggregated.

I’ll ignore the irony of having aggregated the thoughts above. And I won’t even comment on five white guys having written them in the first place, and the stories themselves being about other white guys, and what these facts say about the future (or is it past?) of media and advertising. Happy 2013.

SF Weekly recently published an in-depth look at the Bleacher Report, a sports-centric site whose content is populated almost entirely by its readers. As the article notes, it “[tapped] the oceanic labor pool of thousands of unpaid sports fanatics typing on thousands of keyboards.” The site is user-generated content taken to its logical extreme, for good and bad. The good being the scale of coverage; the bad, the poorly written content.

But now it’s gone pro, hired real writers and editors, and been polished up — and the “lowest-common-denominator crap,” editor King Kaufman says, has been gussied up. The site is now owned by Turner Broadcasting, which snapped it up this summer for a couple hundred mil. Not bad for a site that was built on the backs on unpaid superfans.

I’m not interested in the Bleacher Report per se, but I am interested in the idea that nowadays, crap at scale matters less than quality in proportion, because it’s part of a larger trend sparked by disparate forces in the evolution of the Internet. They’ve come together to wipe away a short-lived business model that called for garbage content that ranked well in search but left the user unfulfilled. This model’s most prominent proponent was Demand Media (and its sites, among which are eHow and Livestrong), but certainly the Bleacher Report qualifies too.

The article does a good job explaining how Bleacher Report (and Demand) initially found so much success — basically, by cheating search engines:

Reverse-engineering content to fit a pre-written headline is a Bleacher Report staple. Methodically crafting a data-driven, SEO-friendly headline and then filling in whatever words justify it has been a smashing success.

The piece also touches on the larger context of the shift from what it calls “legacy media” to the current landscape:

After denigrating and downplaying the influence of the Internet for decades, many legacy media outlets now find themselves outmaneuvered by defter and web-savvier entities like Bleacher Report, a young company engineered to conquer the Internet. In the days of yore, professional media outlets enjoyed a monopoly on information. Trained editors and writers served as gatekeepers deciding what stories people would read, and the system thrived on massive influxes of advertising dollars. That era has gone, and the Internet has flipped the script. In one sense, readers have never had it so good — the glut of material on the web translates into more access to great writing than any prior era. The trick is sifting through the crap to find it. Most mainstream media outlets are unable or unwilling to compete with a site like Bleacher Report, which floods the web with inexpensive user-generated content. They continue to wither while Bleacher Report amasses readers and advertisers alike.

But that being the case, we’re now entering a brand-new era, one that will attempt to combine the scale and optimization of the new guys with the polish of the old. And we’re seeing the end of the SEO-engineered-dreck model for three reasons:

1. The rise of social media as currency
Used to be, back in the aughts, when you were looking for (for example) a podiatrist, you’d Google “podiatrist 10017.” You’d get pages and pages of results; you’d sift through them and cross-reference them to your insurance provider, then go to the doctor, discover he had a terrible bedside manner, and decide you’d rather keep your darn ingrown toenail. Nowadays, your first move would probably be to ask your friends on Facebook or Twitter, “Anyone in NYC have a recommendation for a good podiatrist who takes Blue Cross?” And you’d get a curated response from a dependable source (or even a few of them).

Plainly, social media users endorse people, products and articles that are meaningful. You’d never tweet, “Great analysis of how to treat an ingrown toenail on eHow” (at least not unironically). But you might recommend an article from Fast Company on the latest from ZocDoc.

There will always be a place for search — it’s one of the main entryways into any news or information site, and that’s not going to change anytime soon — but good quality content from a trustworthy source is becoming increasingly valuable again.

2. Google’s Panda algorithm change
In early 2011, Google changed its algorithm in an update it called Panda. This meant that, broadly speaking, better content ranked higher in Google’s results. Its advice to publishers regarding SEO was basically, “Create good content and we’ll find it.”

No longer could Demand Media’s and Bleacher Report’s search-engine-spamming formula win them page views. In fact, Demand Media completely retooled itself in response, saying that “some user-generated content will be removed from eHow, while other content will run through an editing and fact-checking process before being re-posted.”

In other words, quality started to matter to users, who let Google know it, and Google responded accordingly. The result was a sea change from how it had been done, leading to a completely new business model for Demand and its ilk.

3. Advertiser interest
Advertisers have long shunned poor quality content. From the beginning, they almost never wanted placements on comment pages, which can feature all-caps rants, political extremism at its worst and altogether unsavory sentiments (which is why many news sites feature comments separately — you thought that tab or link to comments on a separate page was a UX choice? Hardly). The SF Weekly article quotes Bleacher Report’s Kaufman, who says of its transformation to better quality stuff, “This was not a decision made by the CEO, who got tired of his friends saying at parties, ‘Boy, Bleacher Report is terrible.’ Bleacher Report reached a point where it couldn’t make the next level of deal, where whatever company says ‘We’re not putting our logo next to yours because you’re publishing crap.’ Okay, that’s the market speaking.”

So it is. A longer story for another time, but neither advertisers nor publishers are getting a lot of bang out of banner ads, CPMs and click-through rates. Increasingly, the least you can do to appeal to the market, if you’re a publisher, is create good content. How to do it without breaking your budget and while devising new technologies, maintaining your legacy product and operations, and appealing to readers…well, if I knew the answer to that, I’d be a rich woman.

Meantime, even though “critics from traditional journalistic outlets continue to knock Bleacher Report as a dystopian wasteland where increasingly attention-challenged readers slog through troughs of half-cooked word-gruel, inexpertly mixed by novice chefs,” they’re making money like you wouldn’t believe. They don’t break stories, they own them (the same is true of the Huffington Post).

Another wowing graph that demonstrates the wildly off-base strategy of pouring money into print when you should be spending it where the eyeballs really are: mobile: Take a gander at the print and mobile bars, specifically, on either end:

“Not having a mobile strategy/roadmap in place for your brand is a recipe for disruption. The golden age of mobile is here and will be here for years.” via

Two posts on the GM-Facebook face-off. Similar thoughts (and similar to those I’ve voicedbefore), but the lesson is that brands need to up their content game to appeal to users in new ways and meet consumers where they are. The technology (and marketing philosophy around same) seems to be evolving faster than brands can strategize, but brands must engage users — via the users’ rules — if they want to succeed.

“When brands focus more of their resources on creating compelling digital content—things that people care about sharing—they’ll be able to reach the audiences they’re after.” via

“Advertisers need to think about new end-to-end experiences that inspire and engage a far more connected and discerning audience.” via

Ultimately Facebook is a revolution, and that’s bigger than one brand. As I’ve said before, I wouldn’t root against ’em.

UCLA and HP researchers have determined that successful tweets have common — and predictable — characteristics. Per this fascinating piece in the Atlantic, the researchers’ algorithm can predict a tweeted article’s popularity “with a remarkable 84 percent accuracy” based on the principle that news’ social success can be defined by source, category, language used and the celebrity factor. But the striking thing is just how much the “source” part accounts for:

“What led most overwhelmingly, and most predictably, to sharing was the person or organization who shared the information in the first place. …Brand, even and especially on the Internet, matters. Online, the researchers are saying, the power of the brand is exactly what it has been since brands first emerged in the Middle Ages: It’s a vector of trust. ..When it comes to news, trust is actually much more important than emotion. Shareability is largely a function of reliability.”

It’s all a part of the trend of consumers having conversations with brands and vice versa — instead of being overtly bought and sold as in days past — and the resulting trust rewarded to brands who do it well. Extrapolating, content marketing and social marketing, which help brands build that trust and have those conversations, have with this study been proven out with measurable statistics.

As recently as last year, many brands’ strategy could be summarized by the following (ridiculous) two-pronged approach: 1. Chase SEO (damn the quality of the result); 2. Pray for something to (somehow) go viral. But the Internet changes with alarming rapidity, and the past year and a half has seen a major shift away from these tactics. SEO baiting abated, thanks to Google tweaking its algorithms to rank better content higher, and brands acknowledged that since viral content is by its nature unreliable, they shouldn’t rely on it.

This isn’t to say that search and innate shareability shouldn’t be considerations for brands — they absolutely should; they are foundational. But the new forward strategy is reaching users where they are (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Pinterest, etc.), giving them something reliable and useful, and earning trust in return.

In the case of so-called old media, they must become trusted sources again in this new landscape. Successful new brands (Fab.com to name one) are taking it even one step further with an almost post-branded attitude: Their online presence not only establishes trust with consumers, but their conversational and understanding tone also unpacks branding itself and exposes undisguised sellers as outmoded entities that peddle wares to you but don’t really get you.

Reaching consumers and establishing trust by getting them isn’t a new concept in advertising and marketing, but it’s one that must be repeatedly learned anew as consumer attitudes evolve. It’s a snarky world, but it’s the one we live in, and brand strategies must evolve or perish.

From content strategist Rahel Bailie’s Intentional Design blog, regarding what she terms Big Content, which is to say: “Consideration of content beyond the copy, and even beyond the content.”

“When users feel good about an experience now, they will give feedback now. Conversely, when users have a bad experience, they are more likely to hold onto that feeling of indignation until they feel heard. …For organizations that increasingly depend on user-generated content as part of their marketing strategy, it’s important for them to (a) get users to generate content and (b) get users to generate content that reflects well on their customer experience. In other words, building an environment that encourages users to give immediate feedback should increase the number of instances of positive feedback.”

More — way more — about content strategy and how it relates to user experience at her Big Design Slideshare. Below is my favorite bit: What content means in context:

I didn’t really understand a lot of the slides in Mary Meeker’s presentation at D10, which All Things D and Scribd were nice enough to share, but a few sure stood out.

In this pair of slides we can see that tablet (which counts as mobile, compared with desktop) has seen explosive growth.

Now look at the monetization.

What?! Why are we still trying to justify $3.50 CPM on desktops (versus 75 cents on mobile!) when as we’ve just seen, mobile use is on track to surpass desktop (as it already has in India). This is not any one business’s problem (which seems to be a popular opinion with regard to Facebook). It’s every business’s problem, and it’s mystifying how we have been ignoring it. Web publishers are already playing catch-up to web users’/readers’ value versus those from print (compare $10 or so) — let’s not roll over any more than we must. Let’s work on real solutions for monetizing mobile already. Really awesome sales and marketing products that draw in the users who are there already, ready to be shown great stuff.

I know Michael Wolff is a provocateur, and I take just about everything he does, says or writes with a large grain of salt. But this Technology Review piece about Facebook being “a bust” is just ridiculous in its arguments and assumptions. He basically makes a few on-the-nose observations, draws all the wrong conclusions, then dismantles his original thesis.

Basically, he writes, Facebook is destined to fail because it’s ad-supported.

He makes a correct, if rather obvious, observation: “At the heart of the Internet business is one of the great business fallacies of our time: that the Web, with all its targeting abilities, can be a more efficient, and hence more profitable, advertising medium than traditional media.” And he is right when he says that “the daily and stubborn reality for everybody building businesses on the strength of Web advertising is that the value of digital ads decreases every quarter, a consequence of their simultaneous ineffectiveness and efficiency.” And of course he’s on target when he reports, “I don’t know anyone in the ad-Web business who isn’t engaged in a relentless, demoralizing, no-exit operation to realign costs with falling per-user revenues, or who isn’t manically inflating traffic to compensate for ever-lower per-user value.”

But there’s nothing new there — any of it. We already know CPMs don’t work. As an industry, we’re testing out (or should be, anyway) new revenue streams to see what will work. Pay walls? Maybe — but the jury’s still out whether non-print-subscribing users will put up money for the website only. Cutting jobs (and quality)? Likely, except while it helps the bottom line in the short-term, it erodes trust between reader and media in the long-term. Better targeted ads? Probably, yes, until everyone opts out and/or the government bans it. Running the exact same stories on different local channels to save on news-gathering and ad sales teams? I hope to the heavens that stops really soon. Meantime, our collective time is probably better spent thinking up new ways to do business online and encouraging and learning from those companies who are testing new ways of doing business — like Facebook. Otherwise, you’re just a hater.

So his conclusion that “Facebook is not only on course to go bust, but will take the rest of the ad-supported Web with it” is an utterly hyperbolic eye-roller. And his acknowledgment that the company “has convinced large numbers of otherwise intelligent people that the magic of the medium will reinvent advertising in a heretofore unimaginably profitable way, or that the company will create something new that isn’t advertising, which will produce even more wonderful profits” is actually an argument in favor of the very thing he claims to want fixed a mere paragraph before. Not only should Facebook “reinvent advertising,” it must. Because the way things work now for consumer websites, as Wolff acknowledges, isn’t working. And I think it will. Or at least I wouldn’t bet against ’em.

Wolff draw parallels between Google and Facebook, yet somehow fails to draw a similar parallel for Facebook’s growth potential. He praises Google for its ad system, acknowledging that it also “didn’t have the big idea at the company’s founding, either,” but dismisses Facebook altogether: “Facebook has, in some yet-to-be-defined way, redefined something. Relationships? Media? Communications? Communities? Something big, anyway.”

“Big” is right — it has redefined all those things, so therefore it can and will create its own, new reality. So when Wolff says that Facebook’s strategy is “Just wait,” I say, “Hell, yes.” The company, in its brief life, has completely flipped the script on all the items he mentions. They just did it. They’re doing it. It is, in fact, as Wolff says, “the bridge to new modes of human connection.” And that is the opposite of being “left in the same position as all other media companies.” Most other media companies are failing at the ad-web business. We know this. Most other media companies (and, frankly, non-media companies) are drafting off of what Facebook is doing — and following its rules and ecosystem, just as they did with Google in years past.

I’m not Facebook’s biggest fan; it often pisses me off as much as it pleases me. But I’ve seen it change the web business from the front lines these past few years. Jobs are being created — “Social Media Editor,” “Social Marketing Manager” — that didn’t exist only two or three years ago, and these are being directly guided by Facebook (and, to a lesser degree, Twitter, Tumblr, Pinterest, etc.): its game, its rules. As Google did with “SEO,” so Facebook is creating an industry around its product.

I guess the most (and the least, after all these words I just typed) I can say is this: I’m looking forward to the day when I can say, “I bought Facebook at $29.”